Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Conflicting literature on primaries.

RussianPhysics - 7-11-2013 at 19:36

This will be my first time synthesizing energetic materials. I'm far more versed in physics than in chemistry, but I have some lab experience (my father was a chemical engineer).

The literature seems to be strongly conflicting about the sensitivities of materials (e.g. AP). And allot of materials have no quantified impact sensitivity at all, such as "AP putty" (polystyrene and AP). From materials on hand I can make the following things: RDX, Nitrocellulose, Urea nitrates, and AP among others.

Would AP in Nitrocellulose be a safe primary? Or is nitrocellulose by itself sufficient for RDX? Can I safely plasticize RDX in NC(nitrocellulose) ? I don't plan on making large amounts of anything.

From the standpoint of safety, does graphite coated tables, non-static gloves, etc provide enough safety against static (very dry in the lab)?

Sorry for the long post and beginner questions.

Bert - 8-11-2013 at 01:15

Kick back on any plans to actually make explosives and read a lot.

Maybe read this: http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=22554

Not to be rude, but the questions show you have much to learn before handling live materials. Expect the half dozen kids here who don't yet realy believe they're mortal to disagree with me on that and tell you to just go ahead and do it, "because it's pretty safe, man! I did it, no problems!!!"

Don't make any of the things you mentioned. Especially the ones involving an organic peroxide.

Static electricity protection during explosives handling is a subject that will take more time than I've got, but humidity control (relative humidity at least 50%) and having everything able to DISSIPATE any charge difference is a start.

http://www-eng.lbl.gov/~shuman/NEXT/GAS_SYS/staticelectricit...

NeonPulse - 8-11-2013 at 01:26

AP is not a safe primary despite some claims that it can be safely synthesized. obviously them people have been lucky so far. there are many other safer choices available if your willing to spend a bit of time researching them.weigh up the pros and cons of each primary and what they will be needed for lead azide would be a good choice for something stable and reasonably powerful and it will fire RDX. Mercury fulminate is also pretty powerful but also pretty toxic and can be dead pressed. The silver acetylide double salt is stable too but sensitive to static but its not as powerful as LA. There are things that can be done to help avoid static discharges. in the past i have used a grounding line of of copper wire leading to an earth stake just as a precaution. If you value your digits you should avoid peroxides like AP and HMTD if you can. I guess the ease of manufacture and availability of precursors is what makes them so attractive to people. safety should be your number one concern. ;)

Fantasma4500 - 8-11-2013 at 08:01

peroxides are usually considered unstable, its understandable as they both have some interesting properties that might shock you loudly..
for AP you would want as with other peroxides to keep the yields LOW (below 10 grammes, nothing above that!!)
to neutralize it properly aswell as remove baking soda or whatever you use, with water
to keep it cold
to keep it from UV
to keep it in a container that has no screwlid, as it can act like iodine, from solid to gas to solid
if you have a screwlid it might recrystallize in the screwlid and well, you can imagine what happens when you give a good twist to check up on your forbidden chemistry (:

if you want to be sure about static electricy, then you can get anti static electricity sprays, look it up..

others than that, i would by what i have personally read and understood prefer the acetone rather than hexamine when it comes to peroxides, as its less CHEMICALLY unstable, but more mechanically unstable.. so if you know what you are doing then theres only an unreasonably small chance of it going off, considering also to keep the amounts small in order to minimize any potential accidents..

caterpillar - 8-11-2013 at 20:02

Quote: Originally posted by NeonPulse  
AP is not a safe primary despite some claims that it can be safely synthesized. obviously them people have been lucky so far. there are many other safer choices available if your willing to spend a bit of time researching them.weigh up the pros and cons of each primary and what they will be needed for lead azide would be a good choice for something stable and reasonably powerful and it will fire RDX. Mercury fulminate is also pretty powerful but also pretty toxic and can be dead pressed. The silver acetylide double salt is stable too but sensitive to static but its not as powerful as LA. There are things that can be done to help avoid static discharges. in the past i have used a grounding line of of copper wire leading to an earth stake just as a precaution. If you value your digits you should avoid peroxides like AP and HMTD if you can. I guess the ease of manufacture and availability of precursors is what makes them so attractive to people. safety should be your number one concern. ;)


Could you name one safe primary, pls? I suspect, that this thing does not exist at all. There are more or less dangerous ones. That's all. I have no problems with TATP, but mercury fulminate at nearly killed me (well, mostly due to my stupidity). Calcium nitriminotetrazolate is safer, than lead azide, but it is not for beginners. Add few percent of graphite, if you are afraid of statical discharge and keep sensitive compounds at metal plate, connected with ground. Even if a detonator goes off, the worst case scenario is loosing one or two fingers (assume, you a wearing protective goggle). Kalium picrate is less sensitive than usual primaries, but it goes off, been ignited in confinement.

Fantasma4500 - 9-11-2013 at 05:19

INFACT you CAN initiate a secondary with something you wouldnt understand as being a dangerous thing, relative to a primary explosive at least..

there has been several tests of heatshocking secondaries aswell as posts on this forum using EBW with absolute success every time

but as you might understand a primary has to be easy to set off, but you can find loopholes in the dangerous parts if you dare to look for them

caterpillar - 9-11-2013 at 06:36

I can. The simplest way is to put explosive into steel container and make fire under it.

Bert - 18-11-2013 at 12:45

ANY chemical or mixture that will efficiently transduce a SMALL electrical, shock, friction, light or heat energy input to a shock wave suitable for initiating secondary HE's is intrinsically dangerous to handle. Only their relative sensitivity to these initiation stimuli vary.

Plenty of test results tables are available showing different primaries and secondaries responses to various initiating energy input mechanisms. Drop hammer, friction "shoe", bullet impact, heat tests, static discharge, LASER and even sonic.

Read a lot- The things you don't know WILL kill you. Take the trends you see indicated by the litterature only as a very broad suggestion of relative sensitivity. Your mileage WILL vary from published data, as any homemade products will likely be different in physical form (particle size, crystal shape, etc.) and chemical purity.

Think very carefully before doing any hands on experimentation. If you're too limited by time or resources in to do the work of developing EBW or other technology that bipasses the need, your trade off is the dangers from handling a primary. Minimize ammounts, use shielding and remote pressing whenever possible. Consider what is done by professionals who must do this work as a guideline.

And if you wish to try EBW, do remember you're substituting the dangers of handling high voltage/current for the dangers of a primary rather than eliminating all danger-


[Edited on 18-11-2013 by Bert]